sustainability

Article
Investigating the Impact Factors of the Logistics
Service Supply Chain for Sustainable Performance:
Focused on Integrators
Yingjie Ju 1 , Yue Wang 1, *, Ye Cheng 2 and Jun Jia 1
1 School of Business, University of Jinan, Jinan 250002, China; 20172120809@mail.ujn.edu.cn (Y.J.);
se_jiaj@ujn.edu.cn (J.J.)
2 School of Management Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China;
15966699365@163.com
* Correspondence: se_wangy@ujn.edu.cn




Received: 11 December 2018; Accepted: 18 January 2019; Published: 21 January 2019


Abstract: The overall scale of China’s logistics industry is growing rapidly, and the environment and
conditions for its development are constantly improving, which lays a solid foundation for further
accelerating the development of the logistics industry. However, logistics services are characterized by
subordination, immediacy, demand volatility, and substitutability. Low-level integrated management
of logistics services seriously hinders the development of the logistics service supply chain (LSSC) for
sustainable performance. Many studies have been limited to the performance evaluation of LSSCs,
and the factors affecting LSSC performance have generally been ignored. This study focuses on
integrated LSSCs by using an integrator’s opportunistic behavior as the entry point of research and
investigates the factors that affect the sustainability of LSSC performance. On the basis of relevant
theories, a model for a hypothesis is constructed and eight hypotheses are subsequently proposed.
Moreover, 271 survey responses from functional logistics service providers (research object) are
utilized to develop a structural equation model for empirical research. Findings show that integrators
with opportunistic behavior inhibit the information-sharing behavior of supply chain members.
Consequently, the integration capability and agility of LSSCs are reduced, which affects the overall
performance of LSSCs. The findings of this study can provide management insights into the behaviors
of supply chain members and governments.

Keywords: opportunistic behavior; integrated logistics; logistics service supply chain; sustainable
performance

1. Introduction
The logistics industry, as an important part of the service industry, has received considerable
attention in recent years in the industrial and academic fields [1]. China’s medium- and long-term Plan
for Logistics Industry Development (2014–2020) emphasizes the comprehensive role of the logistics
industry in the service industry. Logistics integrates multiple industries such as transportation,
warehousing, freight forwarding and information [2]. The logistics industry is also regarded as a basic
and strategic industry because it supports national economic development [3]. With the continuous
improvement of this industry, its service provision has attained supply chain characteristics. Logistics
service supply chain (LSSC) is a special type of supply chain within the service supply chain in
which logistics service integrators serve as the core players. LSSCs provide flexible services to ensure
effective logistics operations [4]. The LSSC structure mainly comprises functional logistics service
providers, logistics service integrators and manufacturing and retail companies [5]. Modern logistics
has developed towards green, sustainable, and integrated.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 538; doi:10.3390/su11020538 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 2 of 16

China’s logistics industry has developed rapidly in recent years. However, in comparison with
the level of logistics advancement in developed countries, China’s logistics industry is still in the
midst of transitioning from the development stage to the maturity stage. On the one hand, the
pace of asset reorganization and resource integration of logistics enterprises has accelerated [6], and
numerous logistics enterprises with diversified ownership, networked services, and modernized
management have formed [7]. On the other hand, the ratio of the total cost of social logistics to GDP
has gradually decreased, and the trend of transformation and upgrading of the logistics industry
is evident. Furthermore, the quality and efficiency of logistics operations have improved [8]. The
ratio of the total social logistics expenses to GDP has constantly been much higher in China than in
developed countries. In 2017, the ratio was 14.9% in China and less than 10% in the United States,
Japan, and Germany. Therefore, China’s logistics industry still has a large space for advancement. With
the strengthening of China’s awareness on environmental protection and the concept of sustainable
development, upstream and downstream enterprises of LSSCs are focused on social and environmental
issues as important factors affecting the development of enterprises [9,10]. Under the pressure of
increasingly fierce competition, enterprises are paying increasing attention to reducing related costs
to achieve optimal cost [11], quality [12], price, logistics, and customer satisfaction [13], as well as
realizing the sustainable development of a supply chain. However, China’s logistics service market
is volatile and uncertain. Traditional logistics enterprises are small and scattered, thus requiring
integration and innovation. Major strategic issues in market environment change and technological
innovation constantly challenge enterprises. Enterprises are also facing continuous difficulties in
supporting sustainable competitive advantages by relying only on internal resources and relations.
Enterprises must enhance their ability to quickly organize supply chains and improve the sustainable
performance of supply chains [14,15]. Therefore, it is of theoretical and practical significance to study
the implementation methods of enterprise strategy in order to improve the sustainable performance of
supply chain and maintain the long-term development of enterprises.
Logistics services are generally concentrated on urban logistics development. Logistics service
integrators, as the core players of enterprise activities, play decisive roles in supply chain operations.
They serve as intermediaries and bridges between the demand side and the service side of logistics [16].
In actual operations, owing to information asymmetry and limited rationality, integrators can freely
choose whether to behave opportunistically (to improve the income of their respective enterprises)
or share information (to solve problems of information silos) [17]. According to extant research on
product supply chains, the opportunistic behavior of suppliers negatively affects the content and
quality of information sharing (IS). Then, according to the research on supply-and-demand interactions,
demand uncertainty reduces opportunism, whereas supply uncertainty increases opportunism [18].
In addition, some scholars believe that supply-demand interaction as a prerequisite will significantly
affect the sustainability of supply chain performance. Technology (e.g., IT capabilities) and relationship
(e.g., information sharing, trust, and operational collaboration) factors are prerequisites for promoting
enterprise performance growth in an agile supply chain. Information sharing affects enterprise
performance through the intermediary role of supply chain agility, which is also regulated by
environmental dynamics and information system capabilities [19]. Supply chain agility and integration
capabilities are equally important topics in the research on LSSC performance [20]. However, when
integrators take opportunistic actions, it is not clear what impact they have on supply chain agility
and integration capabilities. Because of the immediate benefits of opportunism, integrators may
temporarily improve their own interests [21]. How will an integrator’s opportunistic behavior (SO)
affect LSSC performance in the long run? Is the path of influence direct or indirect? The answers to
these questions can help explain the sustainable development of LSSCs.
The combined results of previous research have reported three relevant shortcomings. Firstly, in
terms of research objects, most studies mainly focus on the product supply chain and ignore the factors
that affect the sustainability of LSSC performance [22–24]. An LSSC differs from the general product
supply chain. Logistics service market is highly volatile and vulnerable to human factors. We need to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 3 of 16

focus on the behavior preferences of core participants (i.e., integrators). Secondly, in the process of
investigating the impact of behavior on performance, previous research ignored the joint role of supply
chain integration and agility [25,26]. Finally, from the perspective of research, the existing research on
the factors affecting the sustainable performance of supply chain is relatively scattered [27,28], lacking
a unified and empirical verification of the normative model [29].
In order to supplement the research gap and take into account the popularity of logistics services
in China, this study first analyzed the opportunistic behavior of integrators, and then systematically
studied its impact on the sustainable performance of LSSCs. The paper is organized as follows.
Section 1 introduces the background and sustainability of the research issues. Section 2 reviews
relevant literature and proposes a research model with developed hypotheses. Section 3 presents the
research methodology. Section 4 discusses the results of the analysis. Sections 5 and 6 conclude the
study with a discussion of the results, implications and limitations of the study and future research
needs. China, as a populous country, is known for its huge demand for logistics services. With
accelerating urbanization, the original operational mode of China’s urban logistics has gradually but
intensively reformed and developed. The findings from this research can help integrators improve their
behavior, establish lasting partnerships with other enterprises and promote innovations in traditional
logistics operations, thereby contributing to the sustainable development of LSSCs.

2. Theoretical Basis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Opportunistic Behavior of Integrators, Information Sharing, and Agility of LSSCs

According to the transaction cost theory, opportunistic behavior can be described as an enterprise’s
speculative behavior for its own benefit. Suppose that integrators and service providers are in an
information-incompatible state [30], integrators can easily block messages and generate speculative
behavior for their own benefit. Once discovered by partners, this opportunistic behavior will have
a far-reaching impact on the relationship between the two sides, which will inhibit information
sharing [31]. The rapid response of supply chain to demand information will slow down and affect the
flexibility of supply chain.
Existing descriptions on agility originate from the concept of ‘flexible manufacturing system’ in
the 1990s. Agility refers to the ability of an organization to use its knowledge and other partners to
ensure its continued profitability when facing a volatile market environment [32]. The traditional
research on agility is mainly aimed at the manufacturing industry or a single enterprise. However, as
the industry changes, most enterprises exist in the form of supply chain members who need to rely on
the strength of upstream and downstream enterprises to cope jointly with market changes.
LSSCs, as a special type of supply chain, must respond rapidly to market changes to optimize the
overall process of their logistics services and improve their agility. Considering that an integrator is
regarded as the leader of the entire service supply chain, its opportunistic and information-sharing
behaviors can likewise considerably impact the agility of LSSCs (SCA) [33]. In addition, the ability of
trust and integrity of supply chain enterprises can improve the communication between organizations,
thus promoting stable cooperation within the supply chain and improving its flexibility. By contrast,
opportunistic behavior inhibits trust [34]. Blome [35] argues that information sharing amongst
members positively affects the flexibility of the supply chain; however, its impact on the agility
of the supply chain is not yet conclusive. Research findings on the resources acquired by LSSCs
indicate that integrators must collect large amounts of market and customer information, which is
an important method for logistics service providers to obtain market information [36]. The timely
knowledge and information sharing of integrators promote optimization and coordination of the entire
supply chain [37], which then enables the enterprises to rationally decide and improve the decision
making and agility of LSSCs. From the perspective of upstream and downstream organizational
relationships, the opportunistic behavior of integrators inhibits communication, cooperation and
coordination with suppliers and hinders knowledge and information sharing amongst enterprises,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 4 of 16

thereby affecting the agility of LSSCs. From the perspective of energy efficiency, improving energy
efficiency and solving the problem of energy dispatch and distribution can effectively improve the
sustainability and agility of supply chains [38]. On the basis of the above analysis, this research
proposes the following assumptions:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). The opportunistic behavior of integrators significantly and negatively impacts information
sharing.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). The opportunistic behavior of integrators significantly and negatively impacts the agility
of LSSCs.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Information sharing significantly and positively impacts the agility of LSSCs.

2.2. Opportunistic Behavior of Integrators, Information Sharing, and Integration Capabilities of LSSCs
The 21st century is the era of service economy, and a rising trend in service provision and
outsourcing in the logistics industry is observed [39]. As the overall scale of service industry continues
to expand, we need to pay attention to the construction of logistics service brand. At present,
the research on LSSCs mainly focuses on integration and coordination [40]. However, from the
practical viewpoint, most enterprises do not fully understand LSSCs, how they affect logistics and
how partnerships within LSSCs differ from those of supply chains [5,41–43].
In LSSCs, integrators rely on supply-and-demand relationships, particularly the market services
between logistics service providers and customers [44]. The management activities of integrators
generally include forecasting [45], planning [46], controlling [47], risk avoidance [48], and performance
research [33,49,50]. The efficient operation of an LSSC requires good multi-party working relationships
across different organizational levels. When opportunistic behavior manifests [28], the working
relationships of the different departments loosen and the willingness to cooperate across organizations
is reduced, thus affecting the integration capabilities of LSSCs (SCI) [51]. Organizational integration
tightens the functional synergies of organizational processes and improves organizational structures,
thereby helping ensure the sustainability of LSSCs. The sharing of logistics capabilities (information,
demand, supply, cooperation, and coordination) between upstream and downstream partners,
particularly through effective logistics integration, strongly affects the resilience of the supply chain [6].
Thus, the following assumptions are made:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). The opportunistic behavior of integrators significantly and negatively impacts the
integration capabilities of LSSCs.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Information sharing significantly and positively impacts the integration capabilities of
LSSCs.

2.3. Agility and Integration Capabilities of LSSCs

In LSSCs, integration leads to the resource-sharing of integrators and service providers [52]. This
scenario breaks down work barriers and promotes the exchange of information and resources across
the supply chain. Supply chain integration also enhances the stability and reliability of partners
and the overall competitive advantage of the LSSC. Agile LSSC means that in the context of market
volatility, the strategic vision of supply chain members has been strengthened [53], that is, agility is
the basis of process reorganization based on communication (access to information) and supply chain
integration. Leading enterprises can accurately capture market demand by connecting upstream and
downstream information. They can operate independently, respond flexibly to market changes and
remain competitive. The concepts of ‘contradiction’ and ‘transformation’ between the integration and
agility of supply chains can effectively achieve coordination by utilizing a development framework and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 5 of 16

dynamically adjusting the model via information systems [54]. Moreover, the integration capabilities
of supply chain enhance the flexibility of its member enterprises and helps to realize agile supply
chain [55]. Strategies for supply chain agility require high-level supply chain integration, both
internally and externally. Therefore, the following assumption is made:

Hypothesis
Sustainability 6 (H6).
2019, The PEER
11, x FOR integration
REVIEW capabilities of an LSSC significantly and positively affect the agility5ofofthe
17
LSSC.
2.4. Agility, Integration Capabilities and Performance of LSSCs
2.4. Agility, Integration Capabilities and Performance of LSSCs
Some scholars have conducted research on the agility and integration capabilities of supply
chainsSome scholars
because bothhave conducted
aspects research onroles
play important the agility and integration
in improving capabilities of of
the competitiveness supply chains
the supply
because both aspects play important roles in improving the competitiveness
chain market. However, the paths of agility and integration capabilities of LSSCs towards of the supply chain market.
However, the paths
organizational of agility remain
performance and integration
unclear. capabilities
Improving of theLSSCs
agilitytowards
of supplyorganizational performance
chains significantly and
remain unclear.
positively impactsImproving
enterprisethe performance
agility of supplyandchains
plays significantly and positively
a partial intermediary roleimpacts
between enterprise
supply
performance
chain managementand plays a partial
practices andintermediary role between[22].
enterprise performance supply
Thischain management
finding provides an practices and
important
enterprise performance [22]. This finding provides an important guide for
guide for companies in implementing supply chain management practices and improving supply companies in implementing
supplyagility.
chain chain management practices and improving supply chain agility.
Amongst manufacturing companies,
Amongst manufacturing companies, the the integration
integration (internal
(internal integration,
integration, supplier
supplier integration,
integration,
and customer
and customer integration)
integration) of of product
product supply
supply chains
chains results
results in
in aa medium-intensity
medium-intensity positive
positive impact
impact onon
organizational performance [56]. The relationship between integration and performance
organizational performance [56]. The relationship between integration and performance is regulated is regulated
by enterprise
by enterprise size,
size, market
market environment
environment and and national
national culture.
culture. Appropriate
Appropriate integration
integration strategies
strategies can
can
reduce resource
reduce resource waste and minimize
waste and minimize recurring
recurring expenditures
expenditures in in the supply chain,
the supply chain, which
which hashas aa positive
positive
impact on operational and environmental performance. Moreover, through
impact on operational and environmental performance. Moreover, through integration, LSSC integration, LSSC members
can acquire
members capabilities,
can resources,resources,
acquire capabilities, knowledge, information
knowledge, and relationships,
information reduce costs
and relationships, and avoid
reduce costs
operational
and risks [57]. risks
avoid operational When[57].an LSSC
Whendevelops highly agile
an LSSC develops capabilities,
highly its enterprises
agile capabilities, can respond
its enterprises can
rapidly to market changes [58], thereby effectively shortening service delivery
respond rapidly to market changes [58], thereby effectively shortening service delivery cycles andcycles and increasing the
frequency ofthe
increasing service updates.ofConsequently,
frequency service updates.by fully identifying risks
Consequently, by and
fullyopportunities,
identifying enterprises
risks and
opportunities, enterprises can seize opportunities and gain competitive advantage, which ofthen
can seize opportunities and gain competitive advantage, which then improve the performance the
LSSC. Thus, the following assumptions are made:
improve the performance of the LSSC. Thus, the following assumptions are made:

Hypothesis 77 (H7).
Hypothesis The agility
(H7). The agility of
of an
an LSSC
LSSC significantly
significantly and
and positively
positively impacts
impacts the
the performance
performance of
of the
the LSSC.
LSSC.

(H8).The
Hypothesis 88(H8).
Hypothesis integration
The capabilities
integration of an LSSC
capabilities of an significantly and positively
LSSC significantly and impact the performance
positively impact the
of the LSSC.
performance of the LSSC.

From the
From the above
above assumptions, this study
assumptions, this study constructs
constructs aa basic
basic conceptual
conceptual model
model toto analyze
analyze
comprehensively the indirect impact of various factors on the performance of LSSCs (Figure 1).
comprehensively the indirect impact of various factors on the performance of LSSCs (Figure 1).

Integrator's H2
opportunistic Agility of LSSCs
behavior H7

H3
Performance of
H1 H6
LSSCs
H4

Integration H8
Information sharing
H5 capabilities of LSSCs

Figure 1. Conceptual model. LSSCs: logistics service supply chain.

Figure 1. Conceptual model. LSSCs: logistics service supply chain.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Collection

A survey was conducted in Shandong Province and radiated throughout Eastern China.
Shandong Province is a populous region with a huge demand for the logistics industry. This area
represents the status quo of the development of China’s LSSCs. The research object of this study is
the functional logistics service providers in LSSCs. The research work covered five months, from
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 6 of 16

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Collection

A survey was conducted in Shandong Province and radiated throughout Eastern China. Shandong
Province is a populous region with a huge demand for the logistics industry. This area represents the
status quo of the development of China’s LSSCs. The research object of this study is the functional
logistics service providers in LSSCs. The research work covered five months, from April 2018 to
September 2018. Two main approaches were adopted for the survey. (1) The first channel was an
online survey that was sent to the link of the online survey through social media channels (e.g., QQ,
email and WeChat) to logistics practitioners. (2) The second channel was a field survey conducted by
four trained investigators. Potential respondents were informed regarding the details on the aim of
the survey and the concept of LSSCs. They were chosen from the logistics park in Jinan City, which is
the capital of Shandong Province. The respondents completed the written questionnaires after they
agreed to participate in this research. A total of 400 survey questionnaires were distributed. Of the 312
returned questionnaires, 271 were valid. Hence, the effective recovery rate was 68%.

3.2. Design of the Questionnaire

To ensure the reliability of the survey results, the items used in the questionnaire were adopted
from mature measurement scales previously applied at home and abroad. Some scales were adjusted
to align the items with the research purpose. A five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the survey
variables and represent the perceived agreements between the contents of a measurement item and the
actual situation (strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree = 5).
This study refers to the previous literature to operationalize the items for each construct.
According to the literature of Anderson [59] and Rokkan et al. [60], we designed the project of
integrator’s opportunistic behavior and measured it through four indicators: commitment [59],
informal agreement [60], contract loophole [60], and accident [60]. In terms of information sharing,
we fully consider the running path of services in the supply chain. Referring to the literature of
Zhou [61] and Ye et al. [62], we selected four items:—capability [62], planning [61], information [61],
and prediction [62]—for measurement. The agility of LSSCs is a formative construct, which comprises
of three dimensions regarding customization level [63], service agility [63] and product development
cycle [63]. Referring to the research results of Flynn [64], the integration capabilities of LSSCs was
measured. We have designed four items in total, namely, strategic cooperation [64], cross-functional
team [64], service process [64], and information network [64]. Flynn [64], Jia [65], and Feng et al. [66]
constructed evaluation indicators on performance of LSSCs, measured this performance from the
two dimensions of financial performance (SCP–EC) and service capabilities (SCP–SC). Financial
performance includes return on investment [64], growth in profit [64], asset-liability ratio [65], and
market share [64], while service capability includes customer satisfaction [66], cooperative trust [66],
new product development [64], and high-level service [64]. The items were translated into Chinese
and a double check was conducted by Ph.D. students to guarantee the translation accuracy. Several
items were modified to better adapt to the research context. Table 1 shows the variable measurement
items of the survey used in this study.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 7 of 16

Table 1. Measurement scales in the formal questionnaire.

Constructs and Measuring Item Sources

Integrator’s opportunistic behavior
OB1: Integrators made a commitment in a few things but later did not honor such
commitment for some reason.
[59,60]
OB2: Integrators may violate our informal agreements for maximum benefit.
OB3: Integrators increase their revenue by exploiting contract loopholes.
OB4: Integrators may force us to make concessions with unexpected events.
Information sharing
IS1: Members of the LSSC share information regarding our service capabilities.
IS2: Members of the LSSC share planning information on related services. [61,62]
IS3: Members of the LSSC share the demand forecast information for related services.
IS4: Members of the LSSC work with us to forecast service demand.
Agility of LSSCs
SCA1: Our supply chain can improve the level of service customisation.
[63]
SCA2: Our supply chain can increase the speed of improving customer service levels.
SCA3: Our supply chain can compress the development cycle of service products.
Integration capabilities of LSSCs
SCI1: LSSC partners have established strategic partnerships.
SCI2: We applied cross-functional teams in the process of service process optimization. [64]
SCI3: Integrators help us improve our service processes to better meet customer needs.
SCI4: We contact our key customers via the information network to obtain feedback.
Performance of LSSCs—financial performance
EC1: Our return on investment is higher than that of our competitors.
EC2: Our profit growth rate is higher than that of our competitors. [64,65]
EC3: We have lower asset–liability ratio than that of our competitors.
EC4: Our market share is growing faster than that of our competitors.
Performance of LSSCs—service capabilities
SC1: Customers are very satisfied with the logistics services we provide.
SC2: Partners have high trust and can communicate with timeliness and accuracy. [64,66]
SC3: Our logistics service delivers high reliability and a high degree of specialization.
SC4: We can promptly adopt new technologies and develop new services.

3.3. Reliability and Validity Test

The validity and reliability of the survey variables were initially tested before the hypothesis theory
mentioned in previous work was verified. Firstly, in accordance with the work of Thompson et al. [67],
we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on all variables of the model, adjusted the model
according to the adjustment index and factor load, and deleted items that that did not meet the
requirements of the model. The results of data analysis showed that the survey indicators, which
were adopted from mature measurement scales, have good content validity. The Cronbach’s α used in
this study for the dimensions of each construct is higher than the critical value of 0.7, as proposed by
Nunnally [68], indicating that the internal consistency of the scale used in this research is good. Thus,
validity and reliability are both satisfied. Moreover, the factor load of each dimension in each construct
is greater than 0.4, indicating that the measurement scale satisfies the 1-D requirement. As shown in
Table 2, the composite reliability (CR) of all dimensions is greater than 0.6, indicating that the intrinsic
quality of the model is ideal [69]. With regard to the average variance extracted (AVE), all measured
dimensions are greater than 0.5, indicating that aggregation validity is satisfied [69]. The AVE method
was performed to assess whether the AVE in the construct dimension is greater than the decision
coefficient of other dimensions and subsequently determine the discriminant validity of the scale.
As shown in Table 3, the model used in this study has good discriminant validity.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 8 of 16

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, factor loading, Cronbach’s α, composite reliability (CR) and average
variance extracted (AVE) for each variable.

Construct Item Standardised Factor Loading Cronbach’s α CR AVE

SO1 0.76
Integrator’s
SO2 0.97
opportunistic 0.852 0.862 0.615
SO3 0.63
behavior (SO)
SO4 0.74
IS1 0.81
Information IS2 0.80
0.888 0.888 0.665
sharing (IS) IS3 0.87
IS4 0.78
SCA1 0.92
Agility of
SCA2 0.91 0.924 0.925 0.804
LSSCs (SCA)
SCA3 0.86
SCI1 0.77
Integration
SCI2 0.82
capabilities of 0.825 0.828 0.550
SCI3 0.75
LSSCs (SCI)
SCI4 0.61
Performance of EC1 0.74
LSSCs—financial EC2 0.74
0.812 0.813 0.522
performance EC3 0.69
(SCP–EC) EC4 0.72
Performance of SC1 0.76
LSSCs—service SC2 0.73
0.845 0.843 0.574
capabilities SC3 0.79
(SCP–SC) SC4 0.75

Table 3. Correlation between constructs.

SO IS SCA SCI SCP

SO 0.785
IS −0.347 0.816
SCA −0.621 0.277 0.742
SCI −0.228 −0.085 0.734 0.897
SCP 0.051 −0.034 0.712 0.482 0.723

4. Structural Equation Model and Path Test

4.1. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics

This study used AMOS 24.0 to analyze the influence of integrator’s opportunistic behavior,
information sharing, agility and integration capabilities of LSSCs on LSSC performance. In reference to
Jackson’s work [70], we selected Chi-square/degree of freedom, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), root mean
square residual (RMR), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit
index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) for the testing. The results of the
confirmatory fitness test are shown in Table 4. The indicators meet the requirements, except for AGFI
which has a value lower than that of the standard. Thus, the model has good fit.

Table 4. Measurement model fit indices. Goodness-of-fit index (GFI), root mean square residual (RMR),
adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Fit Indices NC (χ2/df) GFI AGFI NFI CFI RMR RESEA PGFI PNFI
Indicators 1.424 0.906 0.881 0.931 0.978 0.049 0.04 0.716 0.802
Criteria <3 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 <0.05 <0.05 >0.05 >0.05
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

4.2. Sustainability
Direct Effect 2019,
Path11,Test
538 9 of 16

After the overall analysis was performed using AMOS 24.0, the structural equation model
4.2. Direct
(Figure 2) andEffect Path Test
the path coefficient test results (Table 5) were obtained. As shown in Figure 2 and
Table 5, eight
After paths exist for
the overall the fivewas
analysis latent variables.using
performed However,
AMOS seven paths
24.0, the were significant
structural at themodel
equation p
< 0.05 level. The opportunistic behavior of integrators significantly affected the
(Figure 2) and the path coefficient test results (Table 5) were obtained. As shown in Figure 2 andinformation sharing
(β =Table
−0.348,
5, teight
= −5.082,
paths p =exist
***),for
integration abilities
the five latent (β = −0.609,
variables. t = −7.806,
However, sevenp =paths
***) and
wereagility of LSSCs
significant at the
(β =p−0.244,
< 0.05 tlevel.
= −4.164,
Thepopportunistic
= ***). Thus, H1, H2, and
behavior ofH4 were supported.
integrators Information
significantly affectedsharing significantly
the information sharing
influenced the integration
(β = −0.348, t = −5.082,ability of integration
p = ***), LSSCs (β = abilities
0.263, t =(β4.345, p = ***).
= −0.609, t=− Thus,
7.806,H5p= was
***)supported.
and agility of
Moreover, integration abilities (β = 0.646, t = 5.600, p = ***) and agility of
LSSCs (β = −0.244, t = −4.164, p = ***). Thus, H1, H2, and H4 were supported. InformationLSSCs (β = 0.489, t = 5.105, p
sharing
= ***) confirmed a positive influence on performance, and integration abilities had
significantly influenced the integration ability of LSSCs (β = 0.263, t = 4.345, p = ***). Thus, H5 was a significant
positive effect Moreover,
supported. on the agility of LSSCs
integration (β = 0.768,
abilities t = 8.413,
(β = 0.646, p = p***).
t = 5.600, = ***)Thus, H6, H7ofand
and agility LSSCs H8(βwere
= 0.489,
supported. The path ‘information sharing → agility of LSSCs’ was insignificant at
t = 5.105, p = ***) confirmed a positive influence on performance, and integration abilities had a p < 0.05. Therefore,
H3 was not supported.
significant positive effect on the agility of LSSCs (β = 0.768, t = 8.413, p = ***). Thus, H6, H7 and
H8 were supported. The path ‘information sharing → agility of LSSCs’ was insignificant at p < 0.05.
Therefore, H3 was not supported.

Figure 2. Diagram of the structural equation model.

Figure 2. Diagram of the structural equation model.
Table 5. Hypothesis results for the structural model.

Path Table 5. Hypothesis results for the structural model.

Standardised
SE CR p Hypothesis Results
Correlation Path Coefficient
PathIS←SO Standardised
−0.348 0.057 −CR
5.082
SE P*** H1
Hypothesis Supported
Results
Correlation Path Coefficient
SCI←IS 0.263 0.053 4.345 *** H5 Supported
IS←SO
SCI←SO −0.348
−0.609 0.057
0.056 −5.082
−7.806 ***
*** H1 H4 Supported
Supported
SCA←SO −0.244 0.063 −4.164 *** H2 Supported
SCI←IS 0.263 0.053 4.345 *** H5 Supported
SCA←SCI 0.768 0.135 8.413 *** H6 Supported
SCI←SO −0.609 0.056 −7.806 *** H4 Supported
Not
SCA←IS −0.076 0.056 −1.729 0.084 H3
supported
SCA←SO −0.244 0.063 −4.164 *** H2 Supported
SCP←SCA 0.489 0.071 5.105 *** H7 Supported
SCA←SCI
SCP←SCI 0.768
0.646 0.135
0.027 8.413
5.600 ***
*** H6 H8 Supported
Supported
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
SCA←IS −0.076 0.056 −1.729 0.084 H3 Not supported
In addition, as shown
SCP←SCA 0.489 by Figure 0.071
2, the interactions
5.105 between
*** integrator’s
H7 opportunistic
Supportedbehavior
and integration capabilities of LSSCs and between agility and performance of LSSCs have significant
direct effects and indirect effects. Amongst them, information sharing may have a certain mediating
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 10 of 16

effect on the interaction between integrator’s opportunistic behavior and integration capabilities of
LSSCs. The agility of LSSCs may likewise have a certain mediating effect on the relationship between
integration capabilities and performance of LSSCs. To further explore the above findings, the possible
mediating effects were also analyzed.

4.3. Indirect Effect Path Test

With regard to the mediation of interactions, some scholars have used the stepwise test method,
which was initially proposed by Baron and Kenny [71], to set coefficient c as a precondition of the
mediation effect. However, the use of this method has been questioned by many scholars because of
several limitations. Different from previous ones, the present study used the bootstrap method for
the product of coefficients [72]. The mediation effects of information-sharing behavior on the path
‘integrator’s opportunistic behavior →integration capability of LSSCs’ and agility of LSSCs in the path
‘integration capabilities of LSSCs →performance of LSSCs’ were tested. Table 6 presents the bootstrap
test results.

Table 6. Mediation effect for the structural model.

Product of Bootstrapping
MacKinnon PRODCLIN2
Point Coefficients Bias-Corrected 95% CI Percentile 95% CI
Variable 95% CI
Estimation
SE Z Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Indirect Effects
SCI←SO −0.178 0.05 −3.558 −0.713 −0.518 −0.717 −0.524 −0.131 −0.028
Indirect Effects
SCP←SCI 0.470 0.138 3.406 0.474 0.944 0.486 0.966 0.226 0.773
Note: 95% confidence, sample size 2000.

In the path of ‘information sharing’ as the mediation variable, results were as follows. (1) The
indirect effect of opportunistic behavior on integration capabilities of LSSCs was estimated to be 3.558,
a value greater than 1.96 (the critical value). (2) In addition, on the basis of the bias-corrected percentile
method, percentile method and MacKinnon PRODCLIN2, the confidence intervals of the indirect effect
were not 0 at the 95% confidence level, thus indicating a significant mediating effect. (3) According to
Table 5, integrator’s opportunistic behavior significantly and directly affects the integration capabilities
of LSSCs. (4) Information sharing has a partial mediating effect on the interaction between integrator’s
opportunistic behavior and integration capabilities of LSSCs.
In the path of ‘agility of LSSCs’ as the mediation variable, results were as follows. (1) The indirect
effect of integration capabilities on the performance of LSSCs was estimated to be 3.406, a value greater
than 1.96 (the critical value). (2) In addition, on the basis of the bias-corrected percentile method,
percentile method, and MacKinnon PRODCLIN2, the confidence intervals of the indirect effect were
not 0 at the 95% confidence level, thus indicating a significant mediating effect. (3) According to Table 5,
the integration capabilities of LSSCs significantly and directly affect the performance of LSSCs. (4) The
agility of LSSCs has a partial mediating effect on the interaction between integration capabilities and
performance of LSSCs.

5. Discussion
Integration capabilities of LSSCs were indicated to have the most significant determinant
influencing performance of LSSCs, followed by agility of LSSCs. In addition, Integrator’s opportunistic
behavior has a direct negative impact on the agility and integration capabilities of LSSCs. Information
sharing promotes the integration capabilities of LSSCs. However, Information sharing was affirmed to
have no influence on the agility of LSSCs.
H3 was unexpectedly not supported. In a general product supply chain, information sharing
exhibits a significantly positive influence on the agility of the supply chain. We conclude that this
result may be due to China’s advancement and the characteristics of the service supply chain which is
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 11 of 16

different from a product supply chain. On the one hand, the integrated development of China’s LSSCs
remains in the initial stage and the degree of information sharing is relatively low [73]. Information
sharing amongst partners must be recognized and learned by supply chain members before this activity
can be transformed into an ability with agility. Thus, information sharing has been lagging behind [74].
On the other hand, the market volatility and substitutability of logistics services are high and are
different from the stable partnership of product supply chain. Initial information sharing increases
the workload of supply chain members and even affects the agility of LSSCs [75,76]. Information
sharing amongst many partners does not translate into the agility of a supply chain, and the entire
service supply chain collapses. Therefore, in an empirical measurement, H3 was not supported. To
solve this problem, the most important thing is to maintain the stability of the LSSC relationship. On
the one hand, integrators should improve the management ability of the whole supply chain and
give them full trust. At the same time, the government can provide some policy benefits to the stable
development of supply chain enterprises to encourage such behavior.
Information sharing partially intermediates the opportunistic behavior and integration capabilities
of LSSCs. This conclusion is consistent with previous research results. In other words, the opportunistic
behavior of integrators not only has a direct negative effect on performance of LSSCs but also negatively
impacts the integration capability of the entire supply chain by reducing information sharing and
creating information barriers amongst partners. Logistics service integrators often collaborate with
multiple functional logistics service providers, and these integrators are regarded as the core leaders
of their respective LSSCs. Nowadays, competition among enterprises has gradually changed into
competition among supply chains. The effectiveness and diversity of information is the greatest
advantage of supply chain. When initiated by integrators, high levels of information significantly and
positively impact the cooperation of partners in the LSSC [77]. Such a scheme also helps accelerate
information flow amongst service providers; promotes trust, stability and integration of relationships;
improves the operational efficiency of the entire service supply chain; lowers overall operating
cost; and increases customer satisfaction. Integrators should pay close attention to information
sharing, particularly the speed and quality of information transmission amongst service providers,
and promptly deliver available information to partners.
The agility of LSSCs partially intermediates the integration capabilities and performance of LSSCs.
This conclusion is the same as our expectation. Specifically, the integration capability of supply chains
not only directly improves performance but also improves the agility and rapid response capability
of the supply chain. Ensuring the sustainable development of LSSCs is the common goal of supply
chain members. The empirical results presented in this paper show that an LSSC’s node of enterprises
can improve the integration capability of the entire supply chain under the guidance of integrators,
thereby ensuring rapid response against market fluctuations. When all members fully digest the shared
information, the integration ability will improve the sensitivity of the supply chain. This outcome
requires integrators to enhance their willingness to share information, improve the sense of security
and belongingness of logistics service providers, maintain mutual trust amongst members and build
stable partnerships from a strategic perspective.
When integrators manifest opportunistic behavior for their own interest, they also hinder
information sharing and subsequently negatively affect the agility and integration capability of the
supply chain. Opportunistic behavior should be limited in order to ensure the sustainability of supply
chain performance. Assuming that integrators learn about the harm caused by their opportunistic
speculations, they should then adopt a cautious attitude when selecting functional providers [78],
carefully study and verify the business capabilities and organizational relationships of providers and
strive to establish relationships based on cooperation and trust. Similarly, integrators can impose
penalties for contract violations, fraud and similar acts of exploitation to constrain their own and their
partners’ opportunistic behavior.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 12 of 16

6. Conclusion and Enlightenment

Drawing upon behavioral science theory and Supply Chain effectiveness theory, this study
develops a research model to examine the impact factors of the logistics service supply chain for
sustainable performance. We conducted a survey in China and collected 271 valid data. We get the
following unique findings: the impact of information sharing on the agility of service supply chain
lags behind, and needs to be transformed into the integration capability of supply chain first. The
results effectively illustrate the importance of continuous information sharing in LSSCs. Logistics
enterprises should establish a solid strategic partnership and form an information sharing alliance.
The agility and integration abilities of LSSCs, which are vulnerable to opportunistic behavior, are the
key factors to improve the sustainability of supply chain performance. Integrators should have the
willingness to improve their behavior and restrain opportunism. China’s logistics industry is in the
stage of transformation and upgrading. Based on the research results, we put forward management
suggestions from the perspective of government and enterprises.
For enterprises, we have the following suggestions: (1) A reasonable cost distribution system
must be established. Sustainable development and integration of logistics resources require enterprises
to pay a certain cost in the short term. This cost must not be borne by several enterprises in the LSSC.
Logistics service integrators, functional logistics service providers and customers in the supply chain
must all bear an appropriate proportion of costs. Logistics service integrators that play a linking role
in the supply chain must strengthen communication and in-depth cooperation with the upstream
and downstream of the supply chain, establish a reasonable cost distribution system, coordinate the
interests of all parties, and jointly overcome the cost barriers of the sustainable development of a supply
chain. (2) A right partner must be selected. Service integrators must select the functional logistics
service providers that conform to sustainable development norms when promoting a sustainable
development strategy. The interests of enterprises in the supply chain are closely related. If the
integrator makes mistakes in choosing the cooperative enterprise, it will directly affect the logistics
service brand and cause irreparable losses. (3) A green operation must be realized from each logistics
link. In the entire LSSC, the functional logistics service provider is the actual logistics activity operator.
Functional logistics enterprises must actively adopt a sustainable development operation mode in
procurement, transportation, storage, processing, and packaging. For example, an integrated transport
system is adopted during transportation. A multi-modal transport method is skillfully applied by
using unit loading and unloading as the carrier to improve transportation efficiency and reduce
environmental pollution during transportation.
About government, some suggestions are put forward according to empirical analysis. (1) The
government should issue relevant policies to encourage the integration of regional logistics resources.
A single function and a small scale of functional logistics enterprises have determined that their
enterprises exhibit special expertise in different regions or fields. During an operation, we must
strengthen the integration of functional logistics enterprises, allow for the full play of the technical
and cost advantages of different logistics service providers in their areas of expertise and achieve
the maximum customer value with the lowest resource consumption. Thus, the total cost of logistics
can be reduced and the sustainable profitability of logistics supply chain can be improved. (2) The
government should promote the construction of logistics infrastructure. The government should give
necessary financial support to the transportation, warehousing, distribution, information facilities, and
park infrastructure construction of key logistics enterprises that meet the requirements. Traditional
logistics parks are encouraged to transform and upgrade to informatization and integration.
This research has several limitations. Firstly, only the impact of the opportunistic behavior of
integrators (i.e., the core players of LSSCs) on the performance of supply chains is discussed. Other
impactful relationships may also exist amongst decentralized service providers. In addition, the study
sample focused on the eastern part of China. Future studies can extend the sample size and investigate
users from other countries, in order to obtain more reliable statistical analysis results and explore
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 13 of 16

if there exist cultural differences. Finally, in different stages of the development of China’s logistics
industry, the factors affecting the performance of LSSCs will change, which needs continuous attention.

Author Contributions: Y.W. and Y.J. conceived of the study and completed the paper in English; Y.J. participated
in data collection and drafted the article; Y.C. and J.J. revised the paper critically for important content.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund Project, China (grant number 17BJL055)
and the Social Science Planning Research Project of Shandong, China (grant number 19BYSJ11).
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank all those who participated in the interview and
provided comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gao, Y.; Chang, D.; Fang, T.; Luo, T. The Correlation between Logistics Industry and Other Industries:
An Evaluation of the Empirical Evidence from China. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2018, 34, 27–32. [CrossRef]
2. Yu, M.; Fransoo, J.C.; Lee, C.-Y. Detention decisions for empty containers in the hinterland transportation
system. Transp. Res. Part B-Methodol. 2018, 110, 188–208. [CrossRef]
3. Grunow, M.; Guenther, H.-O.; Pisinger, D. Logistics in supply chains (Part 2). Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 2012, 24,
1–3. [CrossRef]
4. Shamsuzzoha, A.H.M.; Ehrs, M.; Addo-Tenkorang, R.; Duy, N.; Helo, P.T. Performance evaluation of tracking
and tracing for logistics operations. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2013, 5, 31–54. [CrossRef]
5. Liu, W.-H.; Xu, X.-C.; Kouhpaenejad, A. Deterministic approach to the fairest revenue-sharing coefficient in
logistics service supply chain under the stochastic demand condition. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2013, 66, 41–52.
[CrossRef]
6. Rajahonka, M. Views of logistics service providers on modularity in logistics services. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl.
2013, 16, 34–50. [CrossRef]
7. Ekici, S.O.; Kabak, O.; Ulengin, F. Linking to compete: Logistics and global competitiveness interaction.
Transp. Policy 2016, 48, 117–128. [CrossRef]
8. Sim, G. A Study on the Effects of Logistic Information System on Performance by Efficiency of Internal
Operation and Organizational Innovation. J. Korea Port Econ. Assoc. 2008, 24, 85–102.
9. Altuntas, C.; Tuna, O. Greening Logistics Centers: The Evolution of Industrial Buying Criteria Towards
Green. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2013, 29, 59–80. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, S.-H. The game analysis of negative externality of environmental logistics and governmental regulation.
Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 51, 143–155. [CrossRef]
11. Ramamurthi, P.V.; Fernandes, M.C.; Nielsen, P.S.; Nunes, C.P. Logistics cost analysis of rice residues for
second generation bioenergy production in Ghana. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 173, 429–438. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
12. Thai, V.V. Logistics service quality: Conceptual model and empirical evidence. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl. 2013,
16, 114–131. [CrossRef]
13. Bae, H.S.; Ha, M. The Effect of Service Quality of Port Logistics Firms on Customer Satisfaction and Customer
Loyalty of Korean Exporters. Korea Int. Commer. Rev. 2017, 32, 339–358.
14. Hassini, E.; Surti, C.; Searcy, C. A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a
focus on metrics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 69–82. [CrossRef]
15. Shi, X.; Qian, Y.; Dong, C. Economic and Environmental Performance of Fashion Supply Chain: The Joint
Effect of Power Structure and Sustainable Investment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 961. [CrossRef]
16. Solakivi, T.; Hofmann, E.; Toyli, J.; Ojala, L. The performance of logistics service providers and the logistics
costs of shippers: A comparative study of Finland and Switzerland. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl. 2018, 21, 444–463.
[CrossRef]
17. Park, J.H.; Gu, B.; Leung, A.C.M.; Konana, P. An investigation of information sharing and seeking behaviors
in online investment communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 1–12. [CrossRef]
18. Huo, B.F.; Ye, Y.X.; Zhao, X.D.; Wei, J.; Hua, Z.S. Environmental uncertainty, specific assets, and opportunism
in 3PL relationships: A transaction cost economics perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 203, 154–163.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 14 of 16

19. Yang, J. Supply chain agility: Securing performance for Chinese manufacturers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 150,
104–113. [CrossRef]
20. Topal, B.; Sahin, H. The Influence of Information Sharing in the Supply Chain Process on Business
Performance: An Empirical Study. Stud. Inform. Control 2018, 27, 201–212. [CrossRef]
21. Kang, G.-D. The Effects of Collaborative Communications, Relational Norms and Opportunistic Behaviors
to Interorgnizational Relationship Performance: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Uncertainty. Korean J.
Bus. Adm. 2014, 27, 2181–2217.
22. Eckstein, D.; Goellner, M.; Blome, C.; Henke, M. The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply
chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product complexity. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 3028–3046.
[CrossRef]
23. Park, C.-K.; Kim, C.-B.; Park, S.-M. A Study on the Effect of Supply Chain Integration on Supply Chain
Visibility and Supply Chain Performance. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 33, 21–49.
24. Yeongbok, S.E.O.; Park, C.-K. Effect of Supply Chain Integration on Real-Time Enterprise (RTE) Capabilities
and Supply Chain Performance. J. SME Research 2017, 39, 55–78.
25. Sangari, M.S.; Razmi, J. Business intelligence competence, agile capabilities, and agile performance in supply
chain: An empirical study. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2015, 26, 356–380. [CrossRef]
26. Soni, G.; Kodali, R. Evaluating reliability and validity of lean, agile and leagile supply chain constructs in
Indian manufacturing industry. Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 864–884. [CrossRef]
27. Wu, I.-L.; Chuang, C.-H.; Hsu, C.-H. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply
chain performance: A social exchange perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 148, 122–132. [CrossRef]
28. Cheng, J.-H.; Sheu, J.-B. Inter-organizational relationships and strategy quality in green supply
chains—Moderated by opportunistic behavior and dysfunctional conflict. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41,
563–572. [CrossRef]
29. Cortinhal, M.J.; Lopes, M.J.; Melo, M.T. Dynamic design and re-design of multi-echelon, multi-product
logistics networks with outsourcing opportunities: A computational study. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 90,
118–131. [CrossRef]
30. Yam, R.C.M.; Chan, C. Knowledge sharing, commitment and opportunism in new product development.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2015, 35, 1056–1074. [CrossRef]
31. Yusuf, Y.Y.; Gunasekaran, A.; Musa, A.; Dauda, M.; El-Berishy, N.M.; Cang, S. A relational study of supply
chain agility, competitiveness and business performance in the oil and gas industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014,
147, 531–543. [CrossRef]
32. Lee, C.B.; Yang, J. An Empirical Study on The Effects of Logistics Agility on the Business Performance. Korea
Int. Commer. Rev. 2008, 23, 25–47.
33. Gimenez, C.; van der Vaart, T.; van Donk, D.P. Supply chain integration and performance: The moderating
effect of supply complexity. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2012, 32, 583–610. [CrossRef]
34. Kim, S. The Effects of Formulation and Implementation of Supply Chain Strategy on Collaboration
Performance: Moderating Effects of Trust and Committment. Korean Corp. Manag. Rev. 2012, 19, 27–49.
35. Blome, C.; Schoenherr, T.; Eckstein, D. The impact of knowledge transfer and complexity on supply chain
flexibility: A knowledge-based view. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 147, 307–316. [CrossRef]
36. Stank, T.; Brzica, M.; Ficenec, J. The benefits of supply chain integration using a third-party integrator.
Transfusion 2009, 49 Pt 2, 2536–2538. [CrossRef]
37. Ganesh, M.; Raghunathan, S.; Rajendran, C. Distribution and Equitable Sharing of Value From Information
Sharing Within Serial Supply Chains. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2014, 61, 225–236. [CrossRef]
38. Banyai, T. Real-Time Decision Making in First Mile and Last Mile Logistics: How Smart Scheduling Affects
Energy Efficiency of Hyperconnected Supply Chain Solutions. Energies 2018, 11, 1833. [CrossRef]
39. Lin, Y.-T.; Chen, Y.-J. Competitive outsourcing: Choosing between value-added services and key component
supplying capability. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 3635–3650. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, W.; Wang, D.; Shen, X.; Yan, X.; Wei, W. The impacts of distributional and peer-induced fairness concerns
on the decision-making of order allocation in logistics service supply chain. Transp. Res. Pt. e-Logist. Transp.
Rev. 2018, 116, 102–122. [CrossRef]
41. Xue, Y.; Ge, L. Cost Optimization Control of Logistics Service Supply Chain Based on Cloud Genetic
Algorithm. Wirel. Person. Commun. 2018, 102, 3171–3186. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 15 of 16

42. Huemer, L. Unchained from the chain: Supply management from a logistics service provider perspective.
J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 258–264. [CrossRef]
43. Liu, W.; Zhao, X.; Wu, R. Revenue-Sharing Contract Models for Logistics Service Supply Chains with Mass
Customization Service. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 572624. [CrossRef]
44. Liu, W.; Xie, D.; Xu, X.-c. Quality supervision and coordination of logistic service supply chain under
multi-period conditions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 142, 353–361. [CrossRef]
45. Wang, W.J.; Xu, Q. A Bayesian Combination Forecasting Model for Retail Supply Chain Coordination. J. Appl.
Res. Technol. 2014, 12, 315–324. [CrossRef]
46. Jonsson, P.; Rudberg, M.; Holmberg, S. Centralised supply chain planning at IKEA. Supp. Chain Manag. Int. J.
2013, 18, 337–350. [CrossRef]
47. Nav, H.N.; Motlagh, M.R.J.; Makui, A. Robust controlling of chaotic behavior in supply chain networks.
J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2017, 68, 711–724.
48. Hyun, M.-C.; Cho, B.-Y. The Risk Management in Supply Chain Management and the Firm Performance:
Suppliers’ Perspective. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 36, 75–86.
49. Chae, B.; Olson, D.; Sheu, C. The impact of supply chain analytics on operational performance: A
resource-based view. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 4695–4710. [CrossRef]
50. Jajja, M.S.S.; Chatha, K.A.; Farooq, S. Impact of supply chain risk on agility performance: Mediating role of
supply chain integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 205, 118–138. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, Z.; Ye, F.; Tan, K.H. Effects of managerial ties and trust on supply chain information sharing and
supplier opportunism. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 7046–7061. [CrossRef]
52. Kim, C.-B.; Park, C.-K. A Study on Supply Chain Integration and Corporate & Supply Chain Performances
in Terms of Development Chains. J. Korean Soc. Supp. Chain Manag. 2016, 16, 105–122.
53. Gligor, D.M.; Holcomb, M.C.; Stank, T.P. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Supply Chain Agility:
Conceptualization and Scale Development. J. Bus. Logist. 2013, 34, 94–108. [CrossRef]
54. Fayezi, S.; Zomorrodi, M. The role of relationship integration in supply chain agility and flexibility
development An Australian perspective. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2015, 26, 1126–1157. [CrossRef]
55. Qi, Y.N.; Huo, B.F.; Wang, Z.Q.; Yeung, H.Y.J. The impact of operations and supply chain strategies on
integration and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 185, 162–174. [CrossRef]
56. Wong, C.W.Y.; Lai, K.-h.; Bernroider, E.W.N. The performance of contingencies of supply chain information
integration: The roles of product and market complexity. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 1–11. [CrossRef]
57. Alfalla-Luque, R.; Marin-Garcia, J.A.; Medina-Lopez, C. An analysis of the direct and mediated effects of
employee commitment and supply chain integration on organisational performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015,
162, 242–257. [CrossRef]
58. Tarafdar, M.; Qrunfleh, S. Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain performance: Complementary roles
of supply chain practices and information systems capability for agility. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 925–938.
[CrossRef]
59. Anderson, E. Transaction costs as determinants of opportunism in integrated and independent sales forces.
J. Econ. Behav. Org. 1988, 9, 247–264. [CrossRef]
60. Rokkan, A.I.; Heide, J.B.; Wathne, K.H. Specific Investments in Marketing Relationships: Expropriation and
Bonding Effects. J. Mark. Res. 2003, 40, 210–224. [CrossRef]
61. Zhou, H.; Benton, W.C., Jr. Supply chain practice and information sharing. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25,
1348–1365. [CrossRef]
62. Ye Fei, Z.J. Lv Hui, Research on the Impact of Supplier Opportunism on Information Sharing and Operational
Performance. J. Manag. Sci. 2012, 25, 51–60.
63. Patricia, M.; Swafford, S.G.; Murthy, N. Achieving Supply Chain Agility through IT Integration and Flexibility.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 116, 288–297.
64. Flynn, B.B.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and
configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 58–71. [CrossRef]
65. Peng, J.; Jie, D. Extension Goodness Evaluation on Performance Index of BSC-Based Logistics Service Supply
Chain. Stat. Decis. 2018, 34, 44–48.
66. Feng, C.; Zhang, M.; Liu, H.; Zhang, H.; He, M. Research on the Relationship between Supply Chain
Knowledge Sharing and Firm Performance: The Mediating and Moderating Effect of Supply Chain Agility
and Environmental Dynamics. Manag. Rev. 2015, 27, 181–191.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 538 16 of 16

67. Thompson, B. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications.
Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2017, 31, 245–248.
68. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric theory. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1978, 5, 83.
69. Bagozzi, R.P. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error:
A Comment. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 375–381. [CrossRef]
70. Jackson, D.L.; J Arthur, G.; Rebecca, P.S. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview
and some recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2009, 14, 6–23. [CrossRef]
71. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Concept Strategic and Statistical Considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [CrossRef]
72. Taylor, A.B. MacKinnon, D.P. and Tein, J.-Y. Tests of the Three-Path Mediated Effect. Organ. Res. Methods
2008, 11, 241–269. [CrossRef]
73. Jakhar, S.K.; Barua, M.K. An integrated model of supply chain performance evaluation and decision-making
using structural equation modelling and fuzzy AHP. Prod. Plan. Control 2014, 25, 938–957. [CrossRef]
74. Liu, C.; Huo, B.; Liu, S.; Zhao, X. Effect of information sharing and process coordination on logistics
outsourcing. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 41–63. [CrossRef]
75. Spillan, J.E.; McGinnis, M.A.; Kara, A.; Yi, G.L. A comparison of the effect of logistic strategy and logistics
integration on firm competitiveness in the USA and China. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2013, 24, 153–179. [CrossRef]
76. Jang, H.M.; Marlow, P.B.; Mitroussi, K. The Effect of Logistics Service Quality on Customer Loyalty through
Relationship Quality in the Container Shipping Context. Transp. J. 2013, 52, 493–521. [CrossRef]
77. Ahmad, N.; Mehmood, R. Enterprise systems and performance of future city logistics. Prod. Plan. Control
2016, 27, 500–513. [CrossRef]
78. Liu, C.-L.; Lai, P.-Y. Impact of external integration capabilities of third-party logistics providers on their
financial performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2016, 27, 263–283. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).